Use of Implementation Science Concepts in the Study of Misinformation: A Scoping Review.

IF 2.7 3区 医学 Q2 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH Health Education & Behavior Pub Date : 2024-12-18 DOI:10.1177/10901981241303871
Carla Bang, Kelly Carroll, Niyati Mistry, Justin Presseau, Natasha Hudek, Sezgi Yanikomeroglu, Jamie C Brehaut
{"title":"Use of Implementation Science Concepts in the Study of Misinformation: A Scoping Review.","authors":"Carla Bang, Kelly Carroll, Niyati Mistry, Justin Presseau, Natasha Hudek, Sezgi Yanikomeroglu, Jamie C Brehaut","doi":"10.1177/10901981241303871","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Misinformation hinders the impact of public health initiatives. Efforts to counter misinformation likely do not consider the full range of factors known to affect how individuals make decisions and act on them. Implementation science tools and concepts can facilitate the development of more effective interventions against health misinformation by leveraging advances in behavior specification, uptake of evidence, and theory-guided development and evaluation of complex interventions. We conducted a scoping review of misinformation literature reviews to document whether and how important concepts from implementation science have already informed the study of misinformation. Of 90 included reviews, the most frequently identified implementation science concepts were consideration of mechanisms driving misinformation (78%) and ways to intervene on, reduce, avoid, or circumvent it (71%). Other implementation science concepts were discussed much less frequently, such as tailoring strategies to the relevant context (9%) or public involvement in intervention development (9%). Less than half of reviews (47%) were guided by any theory, model, or framework. Among the 26 reviews that cited existing theories, most used theory narratively (62%) or only mentioned/cited the theory (19%), rather than using theory explicitly to interpret results (15%) or to inform data extraction (12%). Despite considerable research and many summaries of how to intervene against health misinformation, there has been relatively little consideration of many important advances in the science of health care implementation. This review identifies key areas from implementation science that might be useful to support future research into designing effective misinformation interventions.</p>","PeriodicalId":12974,"journal":{"name":"Health Education & Behavior","volume":" ","pages":"10901981241303871"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health Education & Behavior","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10901981241303871","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Misinformation hinders the impact of public health initiatives. Efforts to counter misinformation likely do not consider the full range of factors known to affect how individuals make decisions and act on them. Implementation science tools and concepts can facilitate the development of more effective interventions against health misinformation by leveraging advances in behavior specification, uptake of evidence, and theory-guided development and evaluation of complex interventions. We conducted a scoping review of misinformation literature reviews to document whether and how important concepts from implementation science have already informed the study of misinformation. Of 90 included reviews, the most frequently identified implementation science concepts were consideration of mechanisms driving misinformation (78%) and ways to intervene on, reduce, avoid, or circumvent it (71%). Other implementation science concepts were discussed much less frequently, such as tailoring strategies to the relevant context (9%) or public involvement in intervention development (9%). Less than half of reviews (47%) were guided by any theory, model, or framework. Among the 26 reviews that cited existing theories, most used theory narratively (62%) or only mentioned/cited the theory (19%), rather than using theory explicitly to interpret results (15%) or to inform data extraction (12%). Despite considerable research and many summaries of how to intervene against health misinformation, there has been relatively little consideration of many important advances in the science of health care implementation. This review identifies key areas from implementation science that might be useful to support future research into designing effective misinformation interventions.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Health Education & Behavior
Health Education & Behavior PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH-
CiteScore
8.60
自引率
2.40%
发文量
75
期刊介绍: Health Education & Behavior is the official publication of the Society for Public Health Education (SOPHE). The journal publishes authoritative and practical information on critical health issues for a broad range of professionals interested in understanding factors associated with health behavior and health status, and strategies to improve social and behavioral health. The journal is interested in articles directed toward researchers and/or practitioners in health behavior and health education. Empirical research, case study, program evaluation, literature reviews, and articles discussing theories are regularly published.
期刊最新文献
Use of Implementation Science Concepts in the Study of Misinformation: A Scoping Review. Dengue Treatment-Seeking Behavior: A Qualitative Study With Costa Rican Residents. Racial and Ethnic Composition of Departments of Health Policy & Management and Health Education & Behavioral Sciences. Understanding the Effect of External and Internal Assets on Hazardous/Harmful Drinking Among Chinese College Students: A Serial Mediation Model. Health for Hearts United Longitudinal Trial: Improving Perceived Stress and Allostatic Load Outcomes of Mid-Life and Older African American Women.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1